Which is curious, as is essentiall refutes his use of butterfly mimicry in support of JADs PEH hypothesis.

Some highlights:"A long history of genetic studies has showed that pattern variation is based on allelic combinations at a surprisingly small number of loci"

(note small number-far from the "genetic change of large magnitude" that Vmartin seems to stumble on)

"Fine-scale genetic mapping studies have shown that a shared toolkit of genes is used to produce both convergent and divergent phenotypes. These exciting results and the development of new genomic resources make Heliconius a very promising evo-devo model for the study of adaptive change."

So, Vmartin, where in this paper is the arguement against standard evolution? How does it defend your position? Your precious mimics are becoming model organisms for the evo-devo crowd....

On the one hand, it's really not appropriate for us to make fun of you simply because English is not your native language. Assuming you aren't Old Horseapples and that you really are a non-native speaker trying to conduct a debate about evolutionary science on an English-speaking forum, then we can say:

1. You certainly write better English than I do Slavonian (or German, or whatever your native language may be).

2. Despite your commendable confidence in your ability, however, your written English is simply not good enough to conduct this debate in a fashion understandable to native English, non-Slavonian speakers.

Here's a recent quote from you, followed by my best attempt to render it into "good enough" written English:

Quote

Your problem probably consist in fact that you do not understand other language as english. You seems to have problem therefore to distinguish between analytical (e.g. german, english) and syntetical languages (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages).

Order of words in a sentence seems to be unsurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that only theory you are capable to comprehend is outdate darwinism from mid-19 century.

That many of folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and not even written German is probably a fact. One of you used babelfish translator to translate Nietzsche german text with this curios outcome.

Your problem probably consists in the fact that you do not understand other languages as well as you doEnglish. You seems to be having problems, therefore, in distinguishing between analytical (e.g.,German or English) and syntetical (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages) languages.

Theorder of words in a sentence seems to be aninsurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that [b/the[/b] only theory you are capable of comprehending is outdated Darwinism from the Mid-19thCentury.

That many of the folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and do not even understand written German is probably a fact. One of you used theBabelfish translator to translate Nietzsche's German text with this curious outcome:

What we see, therefore, is that "word order" is not really your problem. Your problems are multiple, but include your failure to use necessary articles and connectives, your failure to appropriately capitalize and punctuate, your uncertain grasp of word endings, your misspellings, your mishandling of the possessive, your failure to use parallel construction, and your numerous other minor-but-cumulative errors.

I could have similarly "corrected" your attempt to "improve" on Babelfish's translation of Nietzsche, which was notably unsuccessful.

Nobody here claimed to understand written German or whatever Slavonic language you are operating from.

You apparently believe, however, that your slightly-broken English--which might well be adequate for picking up girls in a bar--is sufficient for a technical-scientific debate of this kind.

I'm sorry to inform you that it's simply not, although with further practice--which I encourage you to obtain in some less-demanding forum--it may well become adequate before very much longer.

You inability to efffectively deploy logic and evidence in scientific debate, however, is not so easily addressed, but I wish you luck with that as well.

Next time you see John A. Davison, ask him why he pussed out and ran away fron defending his PEH over at TheologyWeb - one of the few places still left where his obnoxious personality hasn't gotten him banned yet.

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

Your problems are multiple, but include your failure to use necessary articles and connectives, your failure to appropriately capitalize and punctuate, your uncertaingrasp of word endings, your misspellings, your mishandling of the possessive, your failure to use parallel construction, and your numerous other minor-but-cumulative errors.

Sorry. Going home from the bar yesterday I lost somewhere all of my english articles and connectives and also some capital letters. I still cannot find them.

Quote

You apparently believe, however, that your slightly-broken English--which might well be adequate for picking up girls in a bar--is sufficient for a technical-scientific debate of this kind.

You wouldnot believe me but females in bar preffered rednecks with oxford english yesterday. Females wanted to hear story how Mankind aroused via random mutation from ancient fish. So I had no chance yesterday at all.

And how I was scared when arriving at home I found that one neodarwinist checked my post for grammar mistakes - so much I am scared of english language teachers still.

Anyway thanks for your acute remark, that " JAD was banned again from UD..., " in the -After the bar closes- is a challenging technical-scientific debate.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

...still brings Vmartin no closer to an understanding of how scientific explanations work.

What "technical-scientific debate" in this "high-demanding forum" are you still raving about? If somebody uses sentences like:

Quote

I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden.

Quote

I now think you're Bulgarian. Now please to translate that into Bulgarian. Using Cyrillic.

Quote

I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes.

and you hold them to be fit for this high "demanding forum" just because you found the english articles and connectives placed in the right positions! It might be (as you seem to occupy yourself with medieval english literature predominantly) that it is enough for you to consider such bullshits for "evidence in scientific debate".

Most of you have not even slightest anticipation of the complex phenomenon of the mimicry. I have given you an example (discovered by Poulton) of two butterflies living in the different areas where mimicry should be established and maintained by the migratory birds(!. Thats the "effectively deployed logic" as neodarwists presents us. But as latest researches showed it would probably be not the correct explanation - birds taste and check unpalatable butterflies from time to time regularly.

Mimicry of butterflies and other insects is far too complex problem to be "explained" away by darwinistic natural selection. Such opinion held for instatnce prominent Austrian entomologist Freinz Heikertinger or also by Davison mentioned Punnet. I found out that even Goldschmidt was of the same opinion. From modern scientist it is Andreas Suchantke.

So it is not as clear as you here would like to see it and ridicule over.

That 14 morphs of P.Dardanus and other aroused via natural selection is hardly to believe. There should be at least some predispostion of the process in some species - be it switch genes that enabled such development of morphs. Process is unthinkable without switch genes that aroused and started do their job long before any differences (especially mimic ones) in wing patterns/colors evolved.

You should be aware also that many morhphs are Mullerian mimics. It means that evolution should happened relatively fast and by no way using darwinistic-gradual step by step process. If we are talking about genotypic mutation with large phenotypic effect (evo-devo) we should have always in mind that such "random mutation" of regulatory genes somehow succeeded exactly hitting the existing wing appearence of unpalatable model! For the mind that is not preoccupied with neodarwinism it is hardly an acceptable explanation (considering all of existing uncountable wing patterns and colors).

And do not forget that Papilio dardanus is also according Punnet (2003) "one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in animal world.". If it is not puzzling for you should be accounted more for your conceit as for your wisdom. I would say.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Next time you see John A. Davison, ask him why he pussed out and ran away fron defending his PEH over at TheologyWeb - one of the few places still left where his obnoxious personality hasn't gotten him banned yet.

Occam's Aftershave,

Professor Davison is currently visiting here, so you could ask him yourself.

and you hold them to be fit for this high "demanding forum" just because you found the english articles and connectives placed in the right positions! It might be (asyou seem to occupy yourself with medieval english literature predominantly) that it is enough for you to consider such bullshits for "evidence in scientific debate".

Um, John Martin, WHO supposedly "occupies himself with medieval english literature"? I have no idea who you're referring to, and if it's me you're WAY off base.

Quote

That 14 morphs of P.Dardanus and other aroused via natural selection is hardly to believe.

I don't know about the rest of those names, but Sal Cordova really is an idiot. That's a simple statement of fact, not an opinion.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one.

I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have...

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one.

I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have...

Close but the siggy you have now is best. It was Springers last salvo before getting banned and resorting to anonymous posting. It's historical

Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one.

I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have...

Close but the siggy you have now is best. It was Springers last salvo before getting banned and resorting to anonymous posting. It's historical

Indeed. If the history of the Intelligent Design movement is ever written, Dave's quote should be the epigraph.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

posted 01. December 2006 16:10 Denigration is all that those animals at the "Slippery Floors Saloon" know. You have them on the run Martin. Believe me.

Omygod, it's MARTIN! Run for it!!!!!

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

posted 01. December 2006 16:10 Denigration is all that those animals at the "Slippery Floors Saloon" know. You have them on the run Martin. Believe me.

Well, if Martin is *not* really JAD, then JAD must be about ready to cum in his pants, since Martin seems to be the only fool in recent history who actually takes JAD's ramblings seriously, and who *doesn't* think JAD belongs in a padded room with lots of Thorazine.

First I thought you are a bipolar scribbler - but I see now that you are only dirty scabby darwinistic pig.

Would you go so far as to say he's a DARWIMP, John VMartin?

PS: How could you possibly know whether Lenny is scabby?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Since the folks here like nice english, I dug out something from prominent writer and former scientist Nabokov on mimicry - of course attitude is antidarwinian one -

Quote

The mysteries of mimicry had a special attraction for me. Its phenomena showed an artistic perfection usually associated with man-wrought things. Consider the imitation of oozing poison by bubblelike macules on a wing (complete with pseudo-refraction) or by glossy yellow knobs on a chrysalis ("Don't eat me – I have already been squashed, sampled and rejected"). Consider the tricks of an acrobatic caterpillar (of the Lobster Moth) which in infancy looks like bird's dung, but after moulting develops scrabbly hymenopteroid appendages and baroque characteristics, allowing the extraordinary fellow to play two parts at once … that of a writhing larva and that of a big ant seemingly harrowing it. When a certain moth resembles a certain wasp in shape and color, it also walks and moves its antennae in a waspish, unmothlike manner. When a butterfly has to look like a leaf, not only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered but markings mimicking grub-bored holes are generously thrown in. "Natural selection," in the Darwinian sense, could not explain the miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior, nor could one appeal to the theory of "the struggle for life" when a protective device was carried to a point of mimetic subtlety, exuberance, and luxury far in excess of a predator's power of appreciation. I discovered in nature the non-utilitarian delights that I sought in art. Both were a form of magic, both were a game of intricate enchantment and deception. (Nabokov's Butterflies 85-86)

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin